Explore the vast range of titles available.

Robots are heralded as part of a new revolution in agriculture. The agricultural robot’s capacity to reduce working time or improve working conditions is often advanced as a major contribution to sustainable agriculture. But the transformations of work appear to be more complex. Here we review the transformations of work subsequent to adoption of agricultural robots on the farm. We carry out a systematic review of literature using a multidisciplinary analytical framework of transformations of work. We consider four dimensions of work: 1) farm structure and the labor market; 2) work organization; 3) meaning of work; and 4) technical-economic performances. Given that the deployment of robots in agriculture is still in its early stages, most of the studies concern the automated milking system (AMS). The transformations of agricultural work represent an emerging topic dominated by a technical and economic vision of work. The major points are as follows: Concerning farm structures, we find no evidence of a relationship between robotization and a certain farm size. Concerning the labor market, there is a risk of skill- and wage-related segmentation and exclusion. The AMS is an example of an in-depth re-organization of work with a decrease in the physical workload but which is concomitant with a new mental workload of monitoring alarms. Concerning the meaning of work with AMS, the changes in the animal-human relationship lead to the possibility of new identities and new self-perceptions by farmers and workers. There is no evidence to support a reduction in working time when an AMS is installed. Finally, a synthesis of the results allows us to propose a research agenda that can better orient future research to understand the diversity of transformations of work resulting from the adoption of robots in agriculture.

Transitioning toward more sustainable agricultural development paths requires extensive change and not simply marginal technical adjustments, as suggested by a strong conception of agroecology. To deal with transition, we believe that agroecology can be enriched by a deep analysis of sustainability transition frameworks and, conversely, that preexisting theories can be questioned in light of the specificities of agroecological transitions (AET). We first examine some of the main sustainability transition frameworks (resilience of social-ecological systems, institutional analysis and development of social-ecological systems, and socio-technical transition). We identify their ontologies to question their ability to be combined without deep adjustments. In a second step, we analyze how these frameworks have been used and questioned by researchers from the life sciences or social sciences in four AET studies. We find that each framework is relevant in its systemic and dynamic approach to change, but also that there are limits concerning the balance between the various dimensions. The scales and processes linked to AET must be taken into account, as well as the way to jointly consider ecological, socioeconomic, and technological aspects. Moreover, it is clear that problems in dealing with agency are common to these approaches, which influences the way to model change. More broadly, sustainability transition frameworks need to account better for ecological and technological materialities and processes, the importance of emergent organizations in singular situations, and learning processes and the diversity of knowledge dynamics. Doing so is challenging because it requires regrounding theories in empirical observations as well as questioning disciplinary frontiers and ontologies.

Background Over the last 20 years or so, farmers the world over have been expressing renewed interest in Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs). Since these marketing channels bring consumers and producers closer together, they are being promoted as a means for producers to recover more of the added value. They are also seen as a part of the solution to the problems associated with long supply chains. However, marketing via SFSCs means that farmers have to take on new tasks, which are likely to disrupt their existing work routines. We propose here to review the scientific knowledge available on the work of farmers in SFSCs. Methods We carry out a systematic analysis of the English-language literature using a multidisciplinary analytical framework of work. We consider five dimensions of work: 1) structural elements of work; 2) economic performance of work; 3) organization of work; 4) working conditions; and 5) occupation. Results The theme of work is not prominent in the existing literature on SFSCs. While there is ongoing debate whether a switch to SFSCs results in increased farm incomes, it is clear that marketing through SFSCs relies on a large amount of poorly remunerated work. New tasks have to be added to work schedules, and new skills are required, making the organization of both productive and marketing work more complex. Various categories of workers are involved in undertaking these tasks, having to bear a heavy workload that is a source of stress and fatigue. However, the economic aspect aside, SFSCs appear to be conducive to farmers’ self-fulfillment at work. Farmers derive particular satisfaction from their involvement in SFSCs since they are more in touch with consumers and because they are participating in the transition of food systems, despite the intellectually and physically demanding work they have to do. Conclusion We call for the study of farmers’ work in SFSCs to be strengthened, by diversifying both the methodologies adopted and the case studies. Such knowledge should enable us to better integrate work-related issues into future public policies to support SFSCs.

Intercropping and agroforestry systems have been increasingly well studied and documented. Yet, so far, no dataset has provided a systematic synthesis of existing data on intercropping experiments in the specific field of horticulture. A systematic literature search was carried using search terms and applied to Web of Science. The resulting dataset includes data from field experiments published in 191 articles covering experiments worldwide, between 1982 and 2022. The selected experiments cover five continents and involved 118 different crop species. Through manual extraction of information from publications, the dataset includes (i) general information on the articles; (ii) experimental site soil and climate conditions; (iii) descriptions of intercropping designs; (iv) crop management practices; (v) measurements of sole crop and intercrop yields and (v) Land Equivalent Ratios. The dataset is arranged in an easily reusable spreadsheet with columns as variables (n = 45) and rows as treatment (n = 1544). The dataset is freely reusable and updateable. We expect that it will provide valuable information for statistical analysis, modeling and innovative farming system design based on intercropping.

This article contributes to understanding the conditions of social-ecological change by focusing on the agency of individuals in the pathways to institutionalization. Drawing on the case of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), it addresses institutional entrepreneurship in an emerging environmental science-policy institution (ESPI) at a global scale. Drawing on ethnographic observations, semistructured interviews, and document analysis, we propose a detailed chronology of the genesis of the IPBES before focusing on the final phase of the negotiations toward the creation of the institution. We analyze the techniques and skills deployed by the chairman during the conference to handle the tensions at play both to prevent participants from deserting the negotiations arena and to prevent a lack of inclusiveness from discrediting the future institution. We stress that creating a new global environmental institution requires the situated exercise of an art of “having everybody on board” through techniques of inclusiveness that we characterize. Our results emphazise the major challenge of handling the fragmentation and plasticity of the groups of interest involved in the institutionalization process, thus adding to the theory of transformative agency of institutional entrepreneurs. Although inclusiveness might remain partly unattainable, such techniques of inclusiveness appear to be a major condition of the legitimacy and success of the institutionalization of a new global ESPI. Our results also add to the literature on boundary making within ESPIs by emphasizing the multiplicity and plasticity of the groups actually at stake.

Agroecology has come a long way. In the past ten years, it has reappeared in France throughout the agricultural sector and is now included in public and private strategies and in supportive policies, with collateral interest effects. Is a new “agro-revolution” taking place? To address this issue, using a methodology mixing hyperlink mapping and textual corpora analysis, we focus here on the trajectory of agroecology in various worlds: that of academia, social movements, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that promote international solidarity, research and training institutions and public policies. This trajectory intertwines actors and time lines, with periods in which certain actors play a specific role, and others in which interactions between actors are dominant in terms of coalition advocacy. Some actors play a major role in circulating agroecology as they belong to several different social worlds (e.g., academia and NGO), present high occupational mobility (from politician to scientist and vice versa), are charismatic or have an irradiating aura in the media, and can articulate and circulate ideas between different social arenas (including between countries). The stabilization of networks of actors is interpreted as the institutionalization of agroecology, both within social movements as well as because of its integration into a policy aimed at an ecological modernization of agriculture. The international positioning of many actors anchors national and regional initiatives more strongly. It is also a prerequisite for the amplification and development of agroecology.

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) is built upon significant cognitive developments in the field of ecological science but also encourages active involvement of all interested parties in its implementation. The coexistence in the same policy text of both substantive and procedural approaches to policy development stimulated this research as did our concerns about the implications of substantive ecological visions within the WFD policy for promoting, or not, social learning processes through participatory designs. We have used a qualitative analysis of the WFD text which shows the ecological dimension of the WFD dedicates its quasi-exclusive attention to a particular current of thought in ecosystems science focusing on ecosystems status and stability and considering human activities as disturbance factors. This particular worldview is juxtaposed within the WFD with a more utilitarian one that gives rise to many policy exemptions without changing the general underlying ecological model. We discuss these policy statements in the light of the tension between substantive and procedural policy developments. We argue that the dominant substantive approach of the WFD, comprising particular ecological assumptions built upon \"compositionalism,\" seems to be contradictory with its espoused intention of involving the public. We discuss that current of thought in regard to more functionalist thinking and adaptive management, which offers greater opportunities for social learning, i.e., place a set of interdependent stakeholders in an intersubjective position in which they operate a \"social construction\" of water problems through the co-production of knowledge.

Understanding the nexus between practices and ecosystems is a critical challenge for sustainability, but it is unclear how ecological sciences have explored the question. To bring clarification, we conducted an analysis of ecology literature dealing with agricultural and forestry practices (AF practices), scanning a total of 27 556 references. Scientometric analyses showed that AF practices were addressed by 5.5% of ecology literature, and that this proportion increased from 2.5 to 8.1% between 1956 and 2017. Content analyses showed that research has mainly focused on monospecific systems in the Global North, predominantly using plot-level experimental approaches. Temporal monitoring, real-world practices and their social context were poorly investigated. This analysis stresses the need to reinforce research in complex agroecosystems, in particular in non-Western countries. Multilevel and spatio-temporal approaches, as well as participatory research, should also be encouraged to build a social-ecological understanding and formulate more grounded, relevant policy recommendations for sustainability.

The confrontations of stakeholder visions about agriculture and food production has become a focal point in the public sphere, coinciding with a diversification of agrifood models. This study analyzes the debates stemming from the coexistence of these models, particularly during the initial term of neoliberal-centrist Emmanuel Macron’s presidency in France. Employing collective monitoring from 2017 to 2021, a corpus of 958 online news and blog articles was compiled. Using a computational analysis, we reveal the framings and controversies emerging from this media discourse. The macro-structuring of discourse on model coexistence revolves around scientific, economic and political framings. Coexistence is a complex of debates based on specific frames associated with specific arenas and actor configurations: growth of organic agriculture, transformations of agrifood systems, sciences of production and impacts, livestock and meat diet controversies, agroecological innovations, CAP reform criticism, discourse of peasant agriculture and State-Profession co-gestion . Employing global sentiment analysis and focusing on salient controversies, namely EGAlim law, pesticide regulations, and agribashing, we show the shift from conciliation to a hardening of debates. Finally, we discuss the causes and consequences of this trend. The political will to support the transition of agriculture remains influenced by the co-gestion system, an inherited configuration of decision-makers instrumental in the agricultural modernization. As a consequence, significant agricultural challenges, particularly highlighted in the scientific macro-frame, persist unresolved. This lock-in of the agrifood system is based on defensive strategies that challenge the democratic debate about food and agricultural practices.

This article contributes to understanding the conditions of social-ecological change by focusing on the agency of individuals in the pathways to institutionalization. Drawing on the case of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), it addresses institutional entrepreneurship in an emerging environmental science-policy institution (ESPI) at a global scale. Drawing on ethnographic observations, semistructured interviews, and document analysis, we propose a detailed chronology of the genesis of the IPBES before focusing on the final phase of the negotiations toward the creation of the institution. We analyze the techniques and skills deployed by the chairman during the conference to handle the tensions at play both to prevent participants from deserting the negotiations arena and to prevent a lack of inclusiveness from discrediting the future institution. We stress that creating a new global environmental institution requires the situated exercise of an art of “having everybody on board” through techniques of inclusiveness that we characterize. Our results emphazise the major challenge of handling the fragmentation and plasticity of the groups of interest involved in the institutionalization process, thus adding to the theory of transformative agency of institutional entrepreneurs. Although inclusiveness might remain partly unattainable, such techniques of inclusiveness appear to be a major condition of the legitimacy and success of the institutionalization of a new global ESPI. Our results also add to the literature on boundary making within ESPIs by emphasizing the multiplicity and plasticity of the groups actually at stake.